Disposed

Residents of Antrikishkanball 3G v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT16 Dec 2020Original Application No. 889/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL held that a housing project violated environmental norms through illegal effluent discharge, undersized sewage treatment plants, and groundwater extraction. It directed authorities to explain why possession was given without occupancy certificates and directed prosecution cases to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to submit reports on lapses; prosecution cases under Water Act expedited; oversight committees formed; occupancy certificate regularization mandated.

Residents of Antrikishkanball 3G vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 4

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 889/2019

¶5

(With report dated 04.12.2020)

¶6

Residents of Antrikish Kanball 3G, Sector-77, Noida Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 16.12.2020

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SATYAWAN SINGH GARBYAL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: Salik Shafique, Advocate

¶13

Respondent: Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate for UPPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The issue for consideration is the remedial action against violation of environmental norms by the project proponent of housing project M/s Antrikish Kanball 3G, Sector 77, NOIDA by discharging effluents in green belt and storm water drain and also extracting ground water illegally.

¶16

The matter was considered on 11.02.2020 in the light of earlier proceedings and further report dated 08.02.2020. The Tribunal noted that untreated sewage was being unscientifically discharged, in violation of environmental norms and two tubewells were operational without lawful permission. The Tribunal observed:-

¶17

“ 3. The State PCB needs to take further action for stopping illegality and recovering the assessed environment compensation by using coercive measures, including black listing and seizing assets of

¶18

¶19

the project proponent. Ample powers are available for the purpose under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which need to be invoked. It is also open to the State PCB to take assistance of any other public authority, including the concerned District Magistrate or the Noida Authority for enforcing the law and environmental rights of the affected parties.

¶20

4. Let a further action taken report be furnished by the State PCB before the next date by email at [email protected]. ”

¶21

The matter was thereafter considered on 07.08.2020 and finding that there was clear violation of environmental laws, requisite action was directed to be taken by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA and the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The operative part of the order is as follows:

¶22

“3. Accordingly, further status reports have been filed on 21.05.2020 and 17.06.2020 by the State PCB to the effect that prosecution has been initiated and request has been sent to the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to take action.

¶23

4. In view of the above, it is clear that despite of violation of the environmental laws, no effective steps is being taken. Learned counsel for the State PCB states that action is to be taken by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA. 5. In view of the above, let the Gautam Budh Nagar and Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA file an action taken reports in matter before the next date by e-mail at judicial- [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.

¶24

6. We also request the Monitoring Committee headed by Justice S.V.S. Rathore, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court, stationed at Lucknow to oversee the action taken in the matter.”

¶25

Accordingly, reports have been filed by the State PCB on 15.12.2020, by the NOIDA Authority on 15.12.2020 and by the Oversight Committee (OC) on 04.12.2020. The report of the State PCB is that the SDM, NOIDA has initiated proceedings to recover compensation of Rs. 3.28 crore approximately against which Writ C No. 7712/2020, Perfect

¶26

¶27

Prop. Build (P) Limited vs. State of U.P. Dept. of Env. Forest and Climate Change is pending before the Allahabad High Court. The report of the NOIDA Authority is that the directions have been issued to the project proponent to set up the STP. The report of the OC is that the matter was reviewed in a meeting on the issue of coercive action as well as compliances and it was found that there are violations of law in giving

¶28

of possession without occupancy certificate and in violation of environmental norms for which the State PCB failed to take remedial action. The relevant observations are:

¶29

“The minutes of meeting are presented as follows:

¶30

S. *No.*	Issue	Decision/Directions by the Committee
1	Penalty against Antriksh Kanball, NOIDA	It was informed by officers of UPPCB, NOIDA that penalty of 3.28 crore was imposed on Antriksh Kanball but he has obtained stay order from Hon'ble High Court (refer*Annexure I)*The copy of stay order_was submitted by UPPCB. Order dated 21.09.2020 states that "In pursuance of the order dated 3.3.2020,_ the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board was granted three weeks to submit its affidavit on or before the next date of listing stating its response to the specific allegations made in the writ petition. Since no affidavit was filed by Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, this Court by its order dated 15.06.2020 had granted further six weeks further time for filing counter affidavit. Despite specific order passed by the Court, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-UPPCB. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that instead of filing an affidavit, the respondents are pressing for recovery. As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent-UPPCB three weeks and no more time is granted to file affidavit. The petitioner will have two weeks' time thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit. Till the next date of listing, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner". (Refer Annexure II). The Committee is of the considered view that there has been negligence on the part of UPPCB and directed UPPCB to file counter affidavit within a week.

¶31

¶32

2	Coercive action against Antriksh Kanball, NOIDA	Representative from UPPCB informed that his consent to operate has been rejected and prosecution has been filed against him for violation of environmental norms. Prosecution/complaint has been already filed U/s 43 of Water Act, 1974 before learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Air and Water) pollution control/CBI Lucknow asComplaint Case no. 1853 of 2020against the Perfect Prop Build (P) Ltd., (Antriksh Kanball) and its responsible persons for violation of Water Act, 1974 which is under consideration before the Special Court of Environment. Member Secretary, UPPCB informed that this case has not been listed for a long time for which an expedite application will be filed within 2-3 days. The Committee firmly directed that pendency in such matters is not acceptable and directed him to review the status of this case on monthly basis.
3	Consent from NOIDA Authority	The Committee inquired from official from NOIDA authority that how was this building approved when there was no provision for proper STP. In the NGT order dated 07.08.2020 it is clearly stated that_"the builder was given EC_ (Environmental Clearance) from SE1AA, U.P. (State level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority) in the name of M/s Antariksh Forest in which a STP of 600 KLD capacity was proposed but the builder has established STP of 100 KLD capacity only in Antariksh Forest. This STP is under size and it is not sufficient to treat the whole effluent of the tower". OSD, NOIDA Authority informed that there must have been a provision for adequate size of STP in the map, on the basis of which approval was given. He will check the files and apprise the Committee. The Committee directed him to submit all the relevant documents. Document submitted NOIDA Authority revealed that M/s Perfect Prop Build Ltd. had applied to obtain occupancy certificate for 11 towers of the township on 10.09.2014. As work was incomplete on the site the occupancy certificates were cancelled on 14.08.2015. M/s Perfect Prop Build Ltd. again applied to get occupancy certificate on 20.07.2017 which wasrejected14.08.2017.

¶33

¶34

		Thus, it is confirmed that no occupancy certificate has been given for any of the towers. After 2017, there has been no application from the side of builder to obtain the occupancy certificate. Therefore, the authority is unable to mention anything with reference to STP construction in the township (Refer Annexure III).
4	Action taken report by DM, Gautam Buddha Nagar and CEO, NOIDA authority	The Committee directed the representatives from the concerned departments to submit the action taken report within a month. Reminders through mail have been sent twice for the same.

¶35

Another meeting was held on 20.11.2020 to sensitize the departments to action and to monitor the compliance. The minutes of meeting are presented below (detailed minutes of meeting attached as Annexure IV):

¶36

In the meeting, it was pointed out by the Oversight Committee that the Hon'ble High Court on 19.12.2019 had set aside the notice dated 29.11.2019 whereby environmental compensation of 3.28 crores was imposed, on the ground of natural justice and had directed that the explanation of the project proponent be considered before taking action in accordance with law. Accordingly, UPPCB had given a notice to the project proponent on 10.01.2020, received reply from the project proponent on 20.01.2020 and passed the speaking order for environmental compensation of Rs. 3.28 crores on 31.01.2020. UPPCB mentioned that the counter affidavit has been filed in the Hon'ble High Court in October, 2020 and they will move an expedite application for early hearing so that EC can be realised.

¶37

Representative from UPPCB had informed the Oversight Committee on 08.10.2020 that the consent to operate of the project proponent has been rejected and prosecution has been filed against him under Section 43 of the Water Act, 1974 before learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Air and Water), Pollution Control/CBI Lucknow as Complaint Case No. 1853 of 2020. It was directed by the Oversight Committee on 08.10.2020 that UPPCB would file an expedite application before the Special Judicial Magistrate. It was mentioned in the meeting dated 20.11.2020 by Shri Vivek Roy, CEO UPPCB that the expedite application has been filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate.

¶38

In the Hon'ble NGT order dated 07.08.2020, it was clearly mentioned that the environmental clearance from SEIAA, UP had been given on the condition that STP of 600 kld would be established. However, the builder has established STP of 100 kld only. The STP is undersized and is not sufficient to treat the whole effluent of the tower. Noida

¶39

¶40

Authority had mentioned that the occupancy certificate was rejected on 14.08.2017. RO UPPCB NOIDA mentioned that 315 families are living in two towers. The Oversight Committee wanted to know as to how without the occupancy certificate 315 families have got the possession, which does not have proper sewage discharge facility and would be hazardous to the lives of the inhabitants in view of insufficient sewage discharge. CEO NOIDA/District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar were asked to inspect and submit the report on this count.

¶41

It was mentioned on 08.10.2020 that the Oversight Committee had directed the District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar and CEO Noida to file their report within a month. No report has been filed till date. A building without any occupancy certificate having inadequate sewage treatment facilities discharging its sewage in green belt and storm water drain is a health hazard to the inhabitants in the building in particular and residents in the locality in general. How without occupancy certificate, possession has been given is a matter of enquiry. CEO, Noida, and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad may submit their report. Additionally, no permission from Central Ground Water Authority/State Ground Water Authority has been obtained by the project proponent and they are extracting ground water illegally. CGWA/SGWA may explain what action has been taken by them in this regard. CEO, Noida may explain if the issue of ground water extraction has been considered by them and action thereon has been taken by them. CEO Noida and District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar were directed to submit their report in next fifteen days.

¶42

IV. INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY UPPCB DATED 19.11.2020 (For details refer Annexure V)

¶43

In the report, it was mentioned that there are 1197 flats. Out of the total, possession has been given for 575 flats and 315 families are residing presently. An STP of 250 KLD was found to be operational and construction work for another STP of 350 KLD was in progress. No untreated sewage was found to be discharged. The design details of STP are annexed in the inspection report.

¶44

Furthermore, it was observed that there are 5 rainwater harvesting pits. No borewell was found and the water requirement is being fulfilled by NOIDA Authority. Moreover, it is mentioned in the report that occupancy certificates have not been obtained by the builder. Letter regarding the same has also been attached in the inspection report.

¶45

V. OBSERVATIONS BY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

¶46

It has been observed by the Committee that the matter has been delayed unnecessarily by the concerned authorities. In the meetings held by the Committee to review the compliances it was observed that counter affidavit was not filed by UPPCB

¶47

¶48

within the time granted by Hon'ble High Court and therefore order that no coercive action could be taken against the builder was passed. After the Committee's direction, an expedite application has now been filed by the Board in this case. Moreover, the Committee is appalled by noticing that how without any occupancy certificate, having inadequate sewage treatment facilities possession has been given to 315 families that are residing there and absolutely no action was taken by any concerned authority in this regard.

¶49

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

¶50

1. NOIDA Authority shall submit a detailed report explaining the reason as to how without occupancy certificate, possession could be given for flats by the builder in a building which does not follow environmental norms. Despite directions the report has not been submitted so far. CEO Noida be directed to submit the report positively in a month.

¶51

2. District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar shall submit his report as to how builder has allowed people to stay in this building in violation of environmental norms. Despite directions the report has not been submitted so far. The DM may be directed to conduct an onsite inspection and submit the report taking into account all the issues raised in this case positively within one month.

¶52

3. UPPCB shall fix responsibility for not filing the affidavit in High Court due to which temporary stay was granted regarding realization of Environmental Compensation. They will ensure proper follow up for vacation of stay regarding imposition of EC. They will also follow up the prosecution case that they have filed in the competent court for violation of Environmental Laws.

¶53

4. CEO, Noida with the help of UPPCB and District Administration shall identify builders and the localities developed by them in which environmental laws/rules and regulations are not being complied with and inform NGT through the Oversight Committee the action taken by them in this regard.”

¶54

Thus, the problem has been duly identified and violation of environmental laws stands established as above. Remedial action needs to be taken. Since the matter is also pending before the Allahabad High Court, to avoid overlapping proceedings with potential for conflicting orders, the applicant may produce all the above documents and a copy of this order for due consideration in the proceedings pending before the

¶55

¶56

High Court so that a holistic view is taken about entirety of the issues arising out of compliance of environmental norms as well as remedial action.

¶57

The application is disposed of.

¶58

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶59

S.K. Singh, JM

¶60

Dr. S.S. Garbyal, EM

¶61